Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 321

Four things advisers can do to manage conflicts

Many financial advisers don’t think they have a conflict of interest, but they might be wrong.

Thanks to the Royal Commission, everybody is talking about vertical integration and in-house conflicts. We explain what this means and highlight four things advisers can do to manage conflicts effectively.

I’m a financial adviser. Am I conflicted?

Probably. Vertically integrated structures are common in the wealth management industry and it’s not just the big banks that use them.

Putting yourself in the position of a financial adviser:

  • Do you recommend financial products (including managed accounts) that are issued or operated by your licensee or corporate group?
  • Do you recommend financial products that will give you, your licensee or your corporate group some type of financial benefit?

If you answered yes to either of these questions, congratulations! You’re conflicted.

So, is my business doomed?

No. Commissioner Hayne toyed with the idea of separating product and advice – known as ‘structural separation’ – but in the end he rejected the idea.

But don’t celebrate just yet.

While Hayne decided that it should be possible for advisers and licensees to manage in-house conflicts effectively, he was damning of the poor consumer outcomes caused by in-house conflicts in recent years.

We expect ASIC to scrutinise vertically integrated structures and in-house product recommendations this year. So advisers and licensees need to be able to demonstrate that they understand the conflict and can manage it effectively.

How do I do that?

You have to place your client’s interests above your own. In most cases, your client will have an existing product. So you should:

  • Perform a comparative analysis of the pros, cons, fees, risks and benefits of their existing product vs your in-house product, and
  • Explain why your in-house product is better for your client than their existing product. It’s not enough to just tell the client you have a conflict.

In-house product recommendations will generally be inappropriate if:

  • The benefits of the in-house product are lower, or
  • The costs of the in-house product are higher.

The exception to this is if there is a clear justification for your recommendation. For example, if your in-house product addresses a specific client need or objective that the existing product doesn’t.

If you can’t easily explain why you’re recommending your in-house product, don’t do it.

Is that all?

No. You have to record all of this on the client file and explain it in the Statement of Advice. Most advisers don’t do this adequately.

If your advice is not properly documented and explained, you are effectively guilty until proven innocent.

So, what should I do?

You can demonstrate that you are managing your in-house conflicts by doing these four things:

  1. Properly research your client’s existing product
  2. Link each recommendation to your client’s needs and objectives
  3. Explain why your in-house product is better for your client than their existing product, and
  4. Record all of these things on the client file.

What should I do next?

Review your advice procedures and conduct a gap analysis. If you have any questions or concerns, get in touch.

 

Simon Carrodus is a Solicitor Director at The Fold Legal. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual or business.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Three financial advice changes nobody is talking about

Westpac case and the digital fix for SOA mess

‘Best interests’ requires walking in their shoes

7 Comments
DavidV
November 07, 2019

Well said and explained..pity you were not interviewed by the hayne comm

DavidV
November 07, 2019

Well said and explained..pity you were not interviewed by the hayne comm

Wayne
August 30, 2019

Hayne's recommendations have only entrenched power in the large institutions.
He was extremely quiet and essentially avoided the matter of intra fund advice and the conflicts within the industry fund network.
We’ll look back on this period as a witch hunt that destroyed a valuable service.
People will be forced back to the large institutions or avoid advice simply because of the cost. Excessive government regulation has a history of disastrous outcomes.

Chris DiMattina
August 29, 2019

The new FASEA Code of Ethics is very strong and definitive about conflicts of interest - you cannot have them, full stop! If there is a conflict you are not to act for the client. No more managing a conflict by disclosing and obtaining client consent. Hopefully there is further guidance on this because as it sits it appears practically unworkable.

SMSF Trustee
August 30, 2019

As an intelligent client, I am perfectly capable of telling when my planner is advising something with a potential conflict and making my decision.
An example. I use AMP's Ascend administration platform. My advisor when I made the decision was an AMP licensee. He showed me a range of options for this service, but Ascend was head and shoulders the best. I could easily have looked even more broadly, but I ended up with a service that does all my auditing, tax returns and other legal work (eg turning my little notes for file into formal Trustee meeting minutes) for a very, very reasonable fee. I get an online capability to approve things, change things and control payments into and out of the fund.
Yes, he had a conflict of interest. But he declared it and we managed it.
How the heck would it have been in my best interests if he'd been forced NOT to recommend the best option for me just because he happened to be employed by them? Give me a break!

Simon
September 03, 2019

The Explanatory Statement softens Standard 3 somewhat.

It states that an adviser "will not breach Standard 3 merely because you recommend to a client financial
products offered by your employer or principal. However, you will breach Standard 3
if a variable component of your remuneration depends on the amount or volume you
recommend of those products..."

I agree that this is not entirely helpful. It places us back in the world of grey to which we have become accustomed.

Frank
August 29, 2019

Just because investment management is outsourced, doesn't make it better. There are plenty of 'external' fund managers struggling and even closing, so why was choosing them in the client's best interests?


 

Leave a Comment:

     
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why we’re not buying the market yet

The Australian market bounced back last Friday (13th) and Monday (16th) tempting analysts to call the bottom of the coronavirus scare. This is too early as the impact on companies is not yet evident.

Drawdown reductions needed for retirees - UPDATED POLICY

During the GFC, in the face of rapid falls in super balances, the minimum drawdowns required for pensions were reduced by 50% to help preserve overall retirement savings. It's time for a repeat.

What are the possible economic effects of COVID-19 on the world economy?

In a widely-quoted scenario using estimated attack and fatality rates of coronavirus, about 0.07% of the population of the US dies. That's about 230,000 people, which the market is not ready for.

How $200 billion is magically created

Australia is in a relatively good position to borrow $200 billion, with the RBA using printed money to buy bonds in the market. The long-term consequences are better than the alternative.

Note to Australia: be more French in the COVID-19 war

Andrew Baker is well-known as a superannuation consultant. Now working in the UK, he was caught in France with his family and is in lockdown. He worries Australian policy was too slow.

Howard Marks on 'Which way now?'

Howard Marks is the largest investor in the world in distressed securities. What does he think after checking the virus positives and negatives, and how much has he changed his mind in only a few days?

Latest Updates

Economy

How $200 billion is magically created

Australia is in a relatively good position to borrow $200 billion, with the RBA using printed money to buy bonds in the market. The long-term consequences are better than the alternative.

Investment strategies

Howard Marks on 'Which way now?'

Howard Marks is the largest investor in the world in distressed securities. What does he think after checking the virus positives and negatives, and how much has he changed his mind in only a few days?

Latest from Morningstar

Four stages of a typical bear market - but is this typical?

Bear markets caused by recession fears follow a pattern, but we have never seen anything like coronavirus. If financial stimulus and medicine prove ineffective, all bets are off. 

Economy

Small business in path of COVID-19 tsunami

The turning point in this crisis will be when the number of new COVID-19 cases starts to decrease. Until then, can we mitigate the damage to businesses and the economy so that we can snap back?

Investment strategies

Why technology stocks are good for the future

Over the long term, the technology sector has a vital role to make the essential transition to a more sustainable global economy and a cleaner planet. We highlight a few names with strong prospects.

SMSF strategies

Avoid complacency with your SMSF's investment strategy

Many trustees of SMSFs have become complacent about vague Investment Strategies, but fund auditors and regulators are paying far more attention. Ensuring your fund complies requires some simple changes.

How an SMSF member can access cash under COVID-19 rules

The wide range of measures introduced due to COVID-19 include relaxation of some superannuation rules, giving some people access to cash. But watch other rules as it's not a super open-house. 

Strategy

Six steps in COVID-19 emergency plans for companies

Businesses and directors must take steps to deal with new restrictions as a result of COVID-19. Here are six actions all companies should consider in these trying times.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use.
Any general advice or class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.